Summer 2040: No more ice in the Arctic Ocean

Weather events from around the world plus Astronomy and Geology and other Natural events.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
Yarrah
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:15 pm
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
Contact:

Summer 2040: No more ice in the Arctic Ocean

#1 Postby Yarrah » Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:48 pm

By 2040, Greenhouse Gases Could Lead to an Open Arctic Sea in Summers


By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: December 12, 2006

New studies project that the Arctic Ocean could be mostly open water in summer by 2040 — several decades earlier than previously expected — partly as a result of global warming caused by emissions of greenhouse gases.

The projections come from computer simulations of climate and ice and from direct measurements showing that the amount of ice coverage has been declining for 30 years.

The latest modeling study, being published on Tuesday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, was led by Marika Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

The study involved seven fresh simulations on supercomputers at the atmospheric center, as well as an analysis of simulations developed by independent groups. In simulations where emissions continue to rise, sea ice persists for long periods but then abruptly gives way to open water, Dr. Holland said.

In the simulations, the shift seems to occur when a pulse of warm Atlantic Ocean water combines with the thinning and retreat of ice under the influence of the global warming trend. Scientists ascribe most of that planet-scale warming, including a warming of the shallow layers of the oceans, to the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases in the atmosphere.

After 2040 or so, ice persists in summer mainly around Canada’s northern maze of islands and the northern coast of Greenland, a region that always tends to accumulate a clot of thick ice.

Separately, scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder found that the normal expansion of sea ice as the Arctic chilled in fall had been extraordinarily sluggish this year, following a pattern seen in recent years. The November average ice coverage was by far the lowest since satellite measurements began in 1979, said Walt Meier, a scientist at the ice center.

“It’s becoming increasingly unlikely that things will be able to turn around,” he said. “It would take several very cold winters and cool summers, which seems unlikely under global warming conditions.”

Several experts not involved with the studies said they were significant for human affairs, as well as biology.

Polar bears will struggle, these scientists said, and so will Arctic people who still go out on sea ice to hunt seals. By contrast, countries and businesses pursuing new shipping lanes, energy supplies and fishing grounds could profit.

The melting is likely to shift weather patterns, too. More sea ice means colder winters, because frigid winds blowing over ice pick up little heat from the warmer waters below.

The change will have ramifications beyond summertime, experts said. Having open water each year would mean that almost all ice forming in winter would be freshly frozen and just a yard or so thick.

This would greatly ease the task of maintaining shipping lanes with icebreaking vessels, said Lawson W. Brigham, deputy director of the Arctic Research Commission, which advises the White House on Arctic matters. Mr. Brigham and other experts said the new research raised the urgency of establishing common standards for protecting the Arctic environment and patrolling shipping lanes. The commission plans to deliver letters to the Bush administration and Congress this week urging them to commit at least $1 million to start work on replacing the country’s two aging, ailing polar-class icebreakers.

Source: New York Times

Eeeek :eek: That means that by 2040, I'll have to move to another part of the world.
0 likes   

JonathanBelles
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 11430
Age: 34
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:00 pm
Location: School: Florida State University (Tallahassee, FL) Home: St. Petersburg, Florida
Contact:

#2 Postby JonathanBelles » Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:15 pm

me 2, itll be too hot here.
0 likes   

User avatar
DrCloud
Tropical Low
Tropical Low
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:47 am
Location: Boca Raton, FL

#3 Postby DrCloud » Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:53 pm

There's a bit of apples and oranges in that article, yet there's also consistency.

For years, climate models have predicted that the polar regions would warm first and fastest. When that didn't happen by the late '80s, the skeptics were all over it, claiming that the models were bogus. They're not quite so vociferous now that it's happening.

Marika Holland is actually a second-generation ocean modeler -- her father was one of the pioneers in the simulation of the global ocean circulation on computers. I'm not sure, but I think she was probably using the climate model that includes the Los Alamos sea-ice formulation, which is quite sophisticated and takes into account the important processes for seasonal ice formation and break-up. It turns out that sea-ice is far more complicated that a just bunch of ice cubes floating around.

I hate to say bad things about people I've met, so I'll let that icebreaking comment slide. But, gee, talk about making lemonade out of lemons...

:roll: HPH
0 likes   

JonathanBelles
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 11430
Age: 34
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:00 pm
Location: School: Florida State University (Tallahassee, FL) Home: St. Petersburg, Florida
Contact:

#4 Postby JonathanBelles » Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:47 pm

yes, i agree with the "let it slide" comment but it could and probably will happen eventually. look at the poles now, they are melting. and lets face it, in 40+ years we will be down to only 6 continents and an ice island.
0 likes   

User avatar
Extremeweatherguy
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 11095
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Florida

#5 Postby Extremeweatherguy » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:13 am

I have a feeling that in 2040 people may be looking back on this and laughing.

I could always be wrong, but I think arctic ice will be here to stay a lot longer than a point just 33-34 years from now.

I guess we will find out then...

BTW, here is the latest satellite image of the ice/snow up there right now:

Image
0 likes   

User avatar
Yarrah
Category 2
Category 2
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:15 pm
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
Contact:

#6 Postby Yarrah » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:11 am

I always wonder why the public opinion on this topic here is so different then in the US.
0 likes   

User avatar
Regit
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2341
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: Myrtle Beach

#7 Postby Regit » Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:36 am

Yarrah wrote:I always wonder why the public opinion on this topic here is so different then in the US.



It's because of what was really a dumb political move by a group in the US. That can't be discussed in the open forum, so if you want the real reason, PM me. :wink:
0 likes   

MetSul Weather Center
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:08 pm
Location: São Leopoldo, Brazil

#8 Postby MetSul Weather Center » Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:57 am

Friends

I am writing to you from a weather center in South America, so there is no political bias in our opinion. The origin of this research is a very respected institution, but we have to disagree. There has been a flurry of catastrophic announcements recently on global warming. Few days ago it was reported in the media taht by 2047 there will no more fishes in the oceans. Now there will be no ice in the north Pole in 2.040. Global wareming is a fact, but many facts are hyped. We strongly believe and natural forcing and for that reason we will not be surprised by a cooling of the planet during a new negative phase of the PDO and the AMO. When I mention science and media hyping on human influence, I want to say that the overall debate in the public arena seems to ignore so many natural factors and warming periods in the recent centuries, For that reason it was not a surprise to us when we read this news piece in the press last Monday:

When it is released in February 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will report that man's impact on global climate is less than previously believed according to a story published in the Sunday edition of the UK-based Telegraph. The Telegraph says that the report will reduce its estimate of man's role in global warming by 25 percent. However, the IPCC will still project global temperatures to climb by 4.5 C during the next century and rising sea levels, albeit by half the amount -- 17 inches instead of 34 inches by 2100 -- forecast by the IPCC's 2001 report. It will also note that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have continued to climb over the past five years but that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution has been dampened by cooling caused by particulate matter and aerosol sprays, which accumulate in the upper atmosphere and reflect heat from the sun. The UN will say the findings are the result of more refined estimates based on new data rather than "a reduction in the risk posed by global warming."

Alexandre
0 likes   

Valkhorn
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:09 am
Contact:

#9 Postby Valkhorn » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:27 am

So what? No matter what we have to lessen our environmental impact.

We can't release as much CO2 as we've been releasing without consequence and we have to be careful and find better sources of energy.

If we run out of fossil fuels - guess what, there is no economy - unless we find better ways.
0 likes   

MetSul Weather Center
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:08 pm
Location: São Leopoldo, Brazil

#10 Postby MetSul Weather Center » Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:35 pm

Yes, of course we have to reduce CO2 emissions, but some studies are creating an unjustified sense of catastrophe: no more fishes, no more ice, no more winters, oceans flooding large cities. It is better to take a look in the past and see what happened before. Global warming is almost becoming a religion.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#11 Postby x-y-no » Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:26 pm

MetSul Weather Center wrote:Friends

I am writing to you from a weather center in South America, so there is no political bias in our opinion. The origin of this research is a very respected institution, but we have to disagree. There has been a flurry of catastrophic announcements recently on global warming. Few days ago it was reported in the media taht by 2047 there will no more fishes in the oceans.


As I understood it, the prediction was not "no more fishes" but rather that those species currently exploited by the commercial fisheries would be reduced to such low populations that they would no longer be economically exploitable. Given what we have already observed in terms of impact of overfishing at major fisheries like the Grand Banks, I don't think that's unreasonable unless we take serious steps to mitigate that impact.


Now there will be no ice in the north Pole in 2.040. Global wareming is a fact, but many facts are hyped. We strongly believe and natural forcing and for that reason we will not be surprised by a cooling of the planet during a new negative phase of the PDO and the AMO.


Well, you're willing to make a specific prediction, at least. My reading of the modelling spread suggests we could see a reduction in the rate of warming rather than an absolute cooling trend.


When I mention science and media hyping on human influence, I want to say that the overall debate in the public arena seems to ignore so many natural factors and warming periods in the recent centuries, For that reason it was not a surprise to us when we read this news piece in the press last Monday:

When it is released in February 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will report that man's impact on global climate is less than previously believed according to a story published in the Sunday edition of the UK-based Telegraph. The Telegraph says that the report will reduce its estimate of man's role in global warming by 25 percent. However, the IPCC will still project global temperatures to climb by 4.5 C during the next century and rising sea levels, albeit by half the amount -- 17 inches instead of 34 inches by 2100 -- forecast by the IPCC's 2001 report. It will also note that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have continued to climb over the past five years but that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution has been dampened by cooling caused by particulate matter and aerosol sprays, which accumulate in the upper atmosphere and reflect heat from the sun. The UN will say the findings are the result of more refined estimates based on new data rather than "a reduction in the risk posed by global warming."

Alexandre



Well, I've read the draft of the IPCC FAR and it's predictions are well within the range of the TAR. So if the UN were to portray this as the result of more refined estimates based on new data rather than "a reduction in the risk posed by global warming" that would be entirely accurate. In fact, it is the Telegraph which misrepresents the meaning of what the FAR says.
0 likes   

User avatar
DrCloud
Tropical Low
Tropical Low
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:47 am
Location: Boca Raton, FL

#12 Postby DrCloud » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:07 pm

Is the IPCC FAR draft somewhere accessible? HPH
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#13 Postby x-y-no » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:15 pm

DrCloud wrote:Is the IPCC FAR draft somewhere accessible? HPH


It was leaked on the web back in June, I think it was. I'm not at my home machine - I'll look for a link tonight and post it if I find it.
0 likes   


Return to “Global Weather”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests